Hello Steve,
This is a very interesting list. And I have cogitated on all 10 of your
suggestions. It seems to me that there could be three categories. 1) Those
that were doomed from day one (e.g. #3); 2) Those that made great sense
based on the state of technology at the time (e.g. #8); and finally those
that some people even today think hold out practical promise (e.g. #10). I
think you would agree with me that the overall list could be much longer.
And thank goodness for hindsight. But, yes, people often romanticize
technological niches and/or overemphasize them for narcissistic reasons.
I must confess that what has gotten me irritated as to the whole subject of
biomimetics was a long article I read in the weekend edition of a local
newspaper. The subject was the "lotus effect", emphasizing textile fibers
based on this phenomenon. It was explained there that within 2 or 3 years
washing machines would be obsolete. At most I would have to blow gently on
my pants to get rid of the dirt. Ain't nature wonderful!? Yes, it is, and
fascinatingly interesting. But that does not neccesarily mean that I can
learn from termites how to arrange the furniture in my living room.
Be well,
Kalman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Vogel Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Examples of the benefits of biomimetic materials & structures
Hi Kalman,
Hope you and all our friends in Beersheva are well. As are we, although
we've moved into a retirement community not far from where we lived, so I've
mowed my last lawn, etc.
I'm with you in the conspiracy of curmudgeons.
In honor of which, I started a list of things that looked technologically
sweet but had, at most, very short commercial lives or very limited
applicability. These aren't biomimetic, but just reminders that the real
world
doesn't necessarily reward innovativeness. What would you add/change?
One could get up another list that makes a point about the primacy of
preexisting technology - even in the face of technological superiority.
So..
1. Brunel’s pneumatic railroad
2. The Flettner ship
3. The supersonic transport plane (Concorde)
4. Analog computers
5. The Stirling engine
6. Rigid airships
7. Autogyros
8. Mechanical (Babbage-type) computers
9. External combustion road vehicles
10. Geodesic domes
Steve
On Tue 09/20/11 10:27 AM , Kalman Schulgasser [log in to unmask] sent:
> OK, so let's say that "natural materials and structures have
> particularly attractive mechanical properties". But it is a fact that in
> advanced
> structures where the customer is willing to pay really big money for
> high-strength and/or high-stiffness to density ratios (e.g. aircraft and
> sporting equipment) natural materials are never used. So, is this a
> conspiracy, or are the engineers just plain stupid?
>
> Am I raining on someone's parade? Ah, yes, if it rains most "natural
> materials" begin losing some of their "attractive mechanical
> properties".
> Now don't get me wrong; I am in favor of trees continuing to be made from
> wood. If they started making trees from graphite reinforced epoxy I would
> be very unhappy.
>
> Spoil Sport (aka Kalman Schulgasser)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Prof Peter Gosling" To: [log in to unmask]>Sent: Tuesday,
> September 20, 2011 3:45 PM
> Subject: Examples of the benefits of biomimetic materials &
> structures
>
> I am looking for examples (evidence) to support the claim that natural
> materials and structures have particularly attractive mechanical
> properties. In particular, I would like to put together a table of
> properties
> (normalised by density?), with comparisons to more conventional materials
> including modern composites.
>
> I would welcome any data & details.
>
> Many thanks, Peter Gosling.
>
>
>
|